A California court has approved the settlement of claims that alcohol beverage makers allegedly sold their products without providing warnings required under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Bonilla v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, No. BC537188 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., judgment entered May 30, 2014). Additional details about the claims appear in issue 515 of this Update. Under the agreement, the companies, denying that the signage they already provided to retailers failed to comply with Prop. 65, will (i) obtain a list of all current licensees from the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; (ii) mail or email to every licensee “Proposition 65 Signage”; (iii) mail or email a letter providing contact information for ordering additional signage free of charge, informing licensees of their posting obligations and describing regulatory requirements pertaining to placement; and (iv) repeat these actions every five years. They also…
Tag Archives Prop. 65
A federal court in the Southern District of California has transferred to the Northern District a lawsuit filed in January 2014 against Pepsico, Inc., alleging that its products violate the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65) because they contain 4 methylimidazole (4-MEI), a chemical included on the Prop. 65 list of substances known to the state to cause cancer, and the company has not provided appropriate consumer warnings. Riva v. Pepsico, Inc., No. 14-0340 (S.D. Cal., order entered April 30, 2014). Eight similar federal lawsuits against Pepsico were filed either in the Northern District or transferred there and are scheduled for a May 29, 2014, case management conference. Finding that transfer to the Northern District would promote the efficient use of judicial resources, the court granted the defendant’s motion. The plaintiffs had argued that under the first-to-file rule, all of the cases should have been…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), responsible for implementing the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, has launched an interactive database that provides information about the results of biomonitoring testing on various groups, including teachers, children and mothers of Salinas, and firefighters. The database allows searching by project or chemical monitored and provides detailed information about testing results. See OEHHA Biomonitoring CA Notice, May 5, 2014. Issue 523
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has reported that the Office of Administrative Law approved regulatory amendments that “clarify the qualifications for appointment to the Carcinogen Identification Committee and Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee, and remove redundant language regarding required financial disclosures.” These committees review chemicals for potential listing as known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. Additional information about the amendments, which take effect July 1, 2014, appears in Issue 501 of this Update. See OEHHA News Release, April 29, 2014. Issue 522
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has determined that the evidence is insufficient to proceed with the Proposition 65 listing process for genistein, a constituent of soy infant formula. Under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) regulations, to identify the reproductive toxicity endpoint, “it is considered necessary that the evidence for developmental toxicity has resulted entirely or predominantly from prenatal exposure,” OEHHA states. “That is not the case for genistein.” The National Toxicology Program monograph on soy infant formula apparently found “clear evidence of adverse effects of genistein in studies with gestational, lactational, and post-weaning treatment, but does not conclude that the effects could result entirely or predominantly from prenatal exposure.” See OEHHA News Release, April 16, 2014. As to OEHHA’s consideration of potential amendments to Proposition 65’s clear and reasonable warning regulations, the agency has agreed to extend the public…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) will conduct a pre-regulatory public workshop on Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) warnings on April 14, 2014, in Sacramento. The event will be webcast. OEHHA Chief Counsel Carol Monahan-Cummings will discuss potential regulatory action, including clarifying questions and responses, discussion of proposed changes and public questions and answers, as well as next steps. Additional information about the proposed Prop. 65 warning changes appears in Issue 517 of this Update. See OEHHA News Release, April 7, 2014. Issue 520
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice of intent to list ethylene glycol (EG) as known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Used in the manufacture of polyethylene terephthalate resins (PET), which are used in bottling, the chemical has been reported for its potential human reproductive and developmental effects by the National Toxicology Program in a 2004 monograph that “identifies EG as causing developmental toxicity in laboratory animals, and satisfies the formal identification criteria in the Proposition 65 regulations,” according to OEHHA. Public comments “as to whether ethylene glycol meets the criteria set forth in the Proposition 65 regulations for authoritative bodies listings” are requested by May 12, 2014. Companies making and selling products containing chemicals listed under Proposition 65 are required to disclose exposures to California consumers or face fines…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has added methyl isobutyl ketone to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). The chemical is used as a solvent for vinyl, epoxy, acrylic and natural resins, and as a synthetic flavoring adjuvant and a fruit flavoring. According to OEHHA, the listing is based on the authoritative body listing mechanism because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified it as a chemical that causes reproductive toxicity. The listing is effective March 28, 2014, and will require exposure warnings to consumers. See OEHHA News Release, March 28, 2014. Issue 518
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has scheduled an April 14, 2014, public workshop to discuss “a possible regulatory action to change the existing regulation governing Proposition 65 warnings.” The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65) requires manufacturers to warn consumers if their products contain any substances known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Failure to provide such warnings exposes manufacturers to enforcement actions filed by private entities or state prosecuting authorities and the possibility of significant fines. While the draft proposed changes hyperlinked to the meeting announcement could change before OEHHA takes any final action, they were developed on the basis of public input provided in 2013, after the agency conducted a pre-regulatory workshop, and respond to the governor’s proposal to reform Prop. 65 to, among other things, “require more useful information to the public on what they…
A California resident has filed a putative statewide class action against PepsiCo, Inc., alleging that the company “touts Pepsi One as follows—‘Full Flavor and One Calorie are now living in complete harmony inside Pepsi One—the drink that unites the taste of regular cola with all the things you like about diet cola’"—without disclosing that it contains the caramel-coloring chemical 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), identified by the state as a carcinogen under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Ree v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 14-0328 (C.D. Cal., filed March 4, 2014). According to the complaint, the absence of the disclosure “was a material and substantial factor which influenced [the plaintiff’s] decision to purchase Pepsi One. In fact, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product had she known that it contained 4-MEI well in excess of Proposition 65 guidelines.” The plaintiff includes information from a Consumer Reports article about…
